IEEPA Tariff Plaintiffs Say Fla. Court's Transfer Order Doesn't Settle Jurisdictional Issue
Plaintiffs challenging tariff action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a D.C. court said a Florida court's recent decision transferring a separate IEEPA tariff case to the Court of International Trade doesn't settle the jurisdictional issue. Filing a brief on May 22, importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind said the Florida court "came to the wrong conclusion" (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
At issue in both the Florida case and Learning Resources' action is whether IEEPA allows for tariff action. If it does, then 19 U.S.C. 1581(i) kicks in, granting the trade court exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases.
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida transferred an IEEPA tariff case to CIT, largely resting the decision on Yoshida International v. U.S. -- a nearly 50-year-old decision sustaining President Richard Nixon's 10% duty surcharge imposed under the Trading With the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor (see 2505210027). The Florida court said Yoshida previously found that the same operative language in IEEPA, which says the president can "regulate" imports, allows for tariffs under TWEA, adding that the court "sees no reason why" Yoshida's reasoning would not apply to IEEPA.
While the U.S. said this decision means the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia should send the case to CIT, Learning Resources said not so fast. The company said the Florida court heavily relied on a "single, 50-year-old, out-of-circuit decision analyzing a different statute."
In addition, Learning Resources distinguished its case from the Florida action by noting that it's opposing transfer of its case to CIT in favor of dismissal -- a factor that "weighs heavily -- if not dispositively -- against transfer." The importer argued that "transfer threatens to place Plaintiffs in a Catch-22." If the trade court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds that IEEPA doesn't provide for tariffs, the court would have to dismiss its case for lack of jurisdiction and thus "lose the power to order relief against Defendants."
As a result, dismissing the case instead of transferring it "will preserve Plaintiffs’ eligibility for meaningful final relief," the brief said, adding that, if the court wanted to transfer the case, it should stay the transfer order and certify the jurisdictional question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.